Sivakumar 1

Arvinth Sivakumar
Melton, Jason
English 5 Section 5
17 February 2016
Writers Narrative
A couple years ago I wrote an essay about Beowulf and modern superheroes for Wendy
Pierce, an English teacher at my high school, Folsom High School. My objective from the
prompt was to compare the story of Beowulf to that of a modern hero and possibly look at how
the older story has influenced modern writing and story creation. More importantly, I was my
goal was to relate the two stories and see how strategies used for an old story are still used today.
I had expected around 180 to 190 points out of 200, but, due to a few places without enough
detail or clear connection points, got 150 points.
I started the essay off with a good, almost perfect description of Beowulfs story and how
a great evil dragon was found at Earnaness 50 years after he defeated Grendels mother.
Beowulf had been fatally wounded, which was another surprise. My key element here was
surprise, which I attempted to use to compare Beowulf with Superman, both of whom are heroes.
One of my main sources of error involved not clearly stating the connection between the
two stories in several paragraphs. The problem was that I often focused on only one topic per
paragraph. It started in the fourth paragraph where I started to introduce Supermans story.
Instead, I should have had a main topic for those paragraphs which mixed the two stories
together to provide more of a clear motive for the connections between the stories.

Sivakumar 2

Ive stopped using the five paragraph formula; however, its still influenced a good part
of my error in those paragraphs. The formula teaches you that you should have an introduction
with two or three main points and only use one of each point for the body paragraphs. Then it
says you should restate the thesis. This is a beginning formula, and limits certain types of
exploration (Foley 232). Professional writers, like those of magazines, use more advanced,
creative strategies to writer whatever they want. If I had written a bit more freely, I wouldnt
have been marked off in that paragraph. Students who go beyond the five-paragraph formula are
likely may be penalized for not writing clearly because they dont know how to express their
complex emotions (Foley 233). This is an example of something which takes away the ability to
say some things due to paragraph topic restrictions. Advanced transitions and other techniques
become a little harder to use.
I explained the reason for my ideas on the relation between the two stories, but
sometimes didnt provide enough answers, information and details. For example, in one
paragraph, I stated the evil in the Superman story came from villains worrying about the future
of the Kryptonian race, while the evil creatures in Beowulf descended from the sinner Cain in
Gods realm. Then I simply stated that both were related since they were large scale sources of
evil.
My connections were a little implicit. Stating them clearly would have helped in some of
these sentences. Writers use paragraphs to bring ideas and evidence together, and make clear,
concise relationships between the topic and the supporting ideas. They also relate the ideas
within the paragraphs to those in other sentences (Lindemann 149). If I had given some more
details in that paragraph I wrote on sources of evil, I would have met the requirements of the
second point by Lindemann above and gained a few extra points. A writer like me may have

Sivakumar 3

thought they explained everything. Why would a teacher recommend more explanation when
there already is some done. The key is that it sometimes isnt enough. Writers often change, cut
and rewrite their writing because they want a form which is appropriate to the subject and carries
a meaning to the audience (Murray 58). Just stating a connection isnt enough. This is probably
the major reason why I got points deducted on my essay. Again, I might have thought that
delving into the connections I stated would have made me go off topic.
In addition to stating a connection, a writer must turn it into a whole new topic with its
own meaning supported by connotation and other devices to make it interesting (Murray 59).
After all, thats what my essay prompt told me to do. Connections and their meanings shouldnt
always be about just main story points. You can focus on details without going off topic as well.
For example, I could have provided more details connecting how Grendel used Gods powers to
render all weapons useless against him, was related to the power behind the evil in Supermans
story. When you make a connection, it often helps to use as many specific and close up details as
is needed to make it clear and precisely state what youre thinking about.
My grade for the assignment went from a possible 85 to 95 percent to a 75 percent due
mostly to connection problems. This means that I must have included a majority of the required
elements needed to fulfill the prompts request in a nice way, including grammar (almost
perfect), spelling, details and quite a few other things. For example, rather than just relate the two
stories, I mentioned the sources of the evil described and how they relate to the modern world
ideas and motives for evil.
Another good thing I did in my essay involved stating why the surprises and sharp
turning points contributed to how the threats were presented in the older story and the modern

Sivakumar 4

story. I also stated the actual events that caused this surprise, though in a brief way. I provided a
lot of details to describe each side of my comparison well, giving me a good number of points in
those categories. Only my lack of middle connections lost me points.
Overall, I wrote a good essay with many details, but often didnt connect them together or
go deep enough with more details into the connections and new ideas I was forming. I ended up
with a grade of 150 out of 200 points, which is a C. I had a great essay, but lacked one thing, the
connection between stories.

Sivakumar 5

Works Cited
Foley, Marie. Unteaching the Five-Paragraph Essay. Teaching English in the Two-Year
College. 16.4. 1989. 231-35. Print.
Lindemann, Erika. Teaching Paragraphing. A Rhetoric For Writing Teachers. New York:
Oxford University Press, 2001. Print.
Murray, Donald M. The Makers Eye: Revising Your Own Manuscripts.
The McGraw-Hill Reader: Issues Across the Disciplines. Ed. Gilbert H. Muller.
New York: CUNY, 2002. 56-60. Print.